In the late 18th century the United States War Department eager to develop home grown weapons, listened enthusiastically to what French revolutionary soldier Major Louis de Tousard had to say. Tousard had learned the gun-making craft in France and was a staunch supporter of le système Gribeauval. It was the French who had started thinking and developing a way of manufacturing guns in some kind of uniform way. In 1765 General Jean-Baptiste de Gribeauval argued for small guns to be manufactured with interchangeable parts.
There were lots of good reasons for this. Guns damaged in the field could not be readily repaired. Each part had to be re-worked with files in order to fit. Hard to do in midst of a bloody battle. Early attempts by early American contractors proved daunting. In 1798 Simeon North, a scythe maker from Berlin Connecticut, was handed a cash advance to manufacture five hundred pistols. Later that year Eli Whitney also received a contract. These two labored over crude machinery in their quest to make identical interchangeable firearms in mass production. By 1822 John Hall –an inside contractor at the Federal armory at Harper’s Ferry, announced he had finally succeeded in making pistols with “interchangeable parts”. Whether or not this is true, America was captivated by the new process to be named “Armory practice”.
The most famous of all was Colonel Samuel Colt. In 1855, the preceding years of knowledge culminated at the Colt’s Patent Firearms Armory in Hartford. There gauges, jigs and machine tools were utilized using the newly developed “bearing point”. This “0” position which was indicated on each jig and drawing, eliminated the wandering of tolerances as they were milled, annealed, hardened and ground to a finished product. Colt, for a short time even built an armory in England. The British were still using lots of labour and bench work with skilled fitters. Begrudgingly they looked to emulate the American system and approached Colt to supply his bespoke machine tools for the Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield Middlesex. However they settled on another Yankee firm - the Ames Manufacturing Company. Colt, as did many private armories, made their own machine tools constantly working to eliminate skilled craftsmen and fitters. Labor costs were much higher in America than those in Britain and Europe. This fact along with Yankee perseverance drove almost all of American manufacturing. Little known was that Colt also built printing presses in his armory, John Thomson’s parallel platen press was produced in large numbers under the “Colts Armory” label. Possibly hundreds are still in use today. We have one in our museum.
From clocks to sewing machines, from Cyrus McCormick’s reaper to Henry Ford’s model T assembly line, continual improvements of making more things at less cost steamrolled forward. When the Singer Sewing Machine Co needed a cheaper wood for their cabinets they opened up a new plant in Cairo Illinois. Cairo had a bountiful supply of gumwood. Cheap and plentiful however difficult to stain, gumwood was priced at $4 per thousand feet as compared to walnut at $50 per thousand. Singer made it work and in 1882 started churning out thousands of gumwood sewing machine cabinets with a great deal of woodworking machinery they developed and made themselves. Over 500,000 Singer sewing machines were being produced a year by 1880.
The bicycle industry took off in the 1880’s. Albert Pope had seen an English Smith & Starley two wheel bike at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition. Captivated he started importing them as the Columbian Light Roadster. Soon after he set up his own factory to manufacture. But although Pope used rudimentary armory practice he was eclipsed by a Chicago firm - Western Wheel Works. For Western found a cheaper way to make a bike. They used newly invented metal stamping for the wheels, sprockets and chain. This eliminated all the machining that Pope and others back east were doing. Cheaper and faster was the result.
Henry Ford produced 15 million model T-s. He made them all the same and affordable. But America soon demanded more. More power, more options, more comfort, and even a cheaper price. This is the irony of free enterprise. One cannot stop improving and sit back and enjoy the fruits of one’s labors. We are all well aware of the power of new printing equipment today. One offset press can make redundant two or even more older models. A factory floor doesn’t need a battery of presses anymore. One tenth of the labor is needed today as compared to just twenty years ago. Surely this showcases a renaissance for the printing industry –even if it’s now much smaller in size. Rigor in calibration of color and software drives mechanical things and continually reduces the cost of print.
To continue the journey, industry leader Heidelberg, has correctly turned their attention to an area poorly served since mass production began. They realized that printing plants vary greatly in their use of its devices and software. Push-to-Stop is their solution. Bring discipline back in order to use the tools that already exist to reduce costs and increase productivity. With run lengths dwindling it’s now more important than ever someone takes this step to drive out waste. Training, just as with jigs and gauges is a by-product of armory practice.
Observe large web-to-print businesses such as Cimpress N.V.’s Vistaprint. Perhaps they don’t associate themselves with armory practice but in fact that’s the basis of their production. Various technologies from digital to offset working seamlessly with a web-to-print ordering template reduce costs and increase their profit margin. They are efficient. The proof is how many companies have jumped into the same game.
In some ways the Heidelberg approach is something each one of us can embrace. From the very simple such as clean organized environment, to more intense upgrading of software and machinery. But these are only part of the real need to, metaphorically, bring back gauges and templates. ISO was supposed to be that tool but isn’t it really just common sense? Tools, whether a printing machine or software, can do much, much more. Pure efficiency is what the American System of manufactures is all about. Common sense in studying our costs and processes, knowing our biggest expense is labor and taking steps to reduce it. The Japanese didn’t invent Lean: America did. The concepts outlined in Six Sigma and other training courses sound impressive. As with all “how to” books and management courses they derive from an early 19th century US War department’s desire for uniformity.
We can still learn a great deal by studying history and make tomorrow more profitable.
EN
DE
FR
CN